I think there should definitely be a place for discussing vetting constraints. My only uncertainty is whether this should be done in a separate article and, if so, whether talent vs. funding constraints should be split. Conditional on having an article on vetting constraints, it looks to me that we should also have articles on talent constraints and funding constraints. Alternatively, we could have a single article discussing all of these constraints.
I think I agree that we should either have three separate entries or one entry covering all three. Iām not sure which of those I lean towards, but maybe very weakly towards the latter?
Mmh, upon looking at Vaidehiās list more closely, it now seems to me that we should have a single article: people have proposed various other constraints besides the three mentioned, and I donāt think it would make sense to have separate articles for each of these, or to have an additional article for āother constraintsā. So I propose renaming talent vs. funding constraintsconstraints in effective altruism. Thoughts?
Done. (Though I used the name constraints on effective altruism, which seemed more accurate. I donāt have strong views on whether the preposition should be āinā or āonā, however, so feel free to change it.)
The article should be substantially revised (it was imported from EA Concepts), I think, but at least its scope is now better defined.
Great. Letās have three articles then. Feel free to split the existing one, otherwise Iāll do that tomorrow. [I know you like this kind of framing. ;) ]
Vetting constraints dovetails nicely with talent vs. funding constraints. Iām not totally convinced by the scalably using labour entry, though. One possibility would be to just replace it by a vetting constraints entry. Alternatively, it could be retained but renamed/āreconceptualised.
Yeah, scalably using labor just doesnāt strike me as a natural topic for a Wiki entry, though I not sure exactly why. Maybe itās because it looks like the topic was generated by considering an interesting questionāāhow should the EA community allocate its talent?āāand creating an entry around it, rather than by focusing on an existing field or concept.
Iād be weakly in favor of merging it with vetting constraints.
Iām currently in favour of keeping scalably using labour, though I also made the entry so this shouldnāt be much of an update (itās not like a āsecond voteā, just a repeat of the first vote after hearing the new arguments).
One consideration Iād add is that maybe itās a more natural topic for a tag than a wiki entry? It seems to me like having a tag for posts relevant to a (sufficiently) interesting and recurring question makes sense?
Fwiw, I think that āscalably using labourā doesnāt sound quite like a wiki entry. I find virtually no article titles including the term āusingā on Wikipedia.
If one wants to retain the concept, I think that āLarge-scale use of labourā or something similar would be better. There are may Wikipedia article titles including the term āuse of [noun]ā. (Potentially nouns are generally better than verbs in Wikipedia article titles? Not sure.)
Vetting constraints
Maybe this wouldnāt add sufficient value to be worth having, given that we already have scalably using labour and talent vs. funding constraints.
I think there should definitely be a place for discussing vetting constraints. My only uncertainty is whether this should be done in a separate article and, if so, whether talent vs. funding constraints should be split. Conditional on having an article on vetting constraints, it looks to me that we should also have articles on talent constraints and funding constraints. Alternatively, we could have a single article discussing all of these constraints.
I think I agree that we should either have three separate entries or one entry covering all three. Iām not sure which of those I lean towards, but maybe very weakly towards the latter?
Just discovered Vaidehi made a collection of discussions of constraints in EA, which could be helpful for populating whatever entries get created and maybe for deciding on scopes etc.
Mmh, upon looking at Vaidehiās list more closely, it now seems to me that we should have a single article: people have proposed various other constraints besides the three mentioned, and I donāt think it would make sense to have separate articles for each of these, or to have an additional article for āother constraintsā. So I propose renaming talent vs. funding constraints constraints in effective altruism. Thoughts?
I think that that probably makes sense.
Done. (Though I used the name constraints on effective altruism, which seemed more accurate. I donāt have strong views on whether the preposition should be āinā or āonā, however, so feel free to change it.)
The article should be substantially revised (it was imported from EA Concepts), I think, but at least its scope is now better defined.
Great. Letās have three articles then. Feel free to split the existing one, otherwise Iāll do that tomorrow. [I know you like this kind of framing. ;) ]
Vetting constraints dovetails nicely with talent vs. funding constraints. Iām not totally convinced by the scalably using labour entry, though. One possibility would be to just replace it by a vetting constraints entry. Alternatively, it could be retained but renamed/āreconceptualised.
Yeah, scalably using labor just doesnāt strike me as a natural topic for a Wiki entry, though I not sure exactly why. Maybe itās because it looks like the topic was generated by considering an interesting questionāāhow should the EA community allocate its talent?āāand creating an entry around it, rather than by focusing on an existing field or concept.
Iād be weakly in favor of merging it with vetting constraints.
Iām currently in favour of keeping scalably using labour, though I also made the entry so this shouldnāt be much of an update (itās not like a āsecond voteā, just a repeat of the first vote after hearing the new arguments).
One consideration Iād add is that maybe itās a more natural topic for a tag than a wiki entry? It seems to me like having a tag for posts relevant to a (sufficiently) interesting and recurring question makes sense?
Fwiw, I think that āscalably using labourā doesnāt sound quite like a wiki entry. I find virtually no article titles including the term āusingā on Wikipedia.
If one wants to retain the concept, I think that āLarge-scale use of labourā or something similar would be better. There are may Wikipedia article titles including the term āuse of [noun]ā. (Potentially nouns are generally better than verbs in Wikipedia article titles? Not sure.)